Korg Forums

McHale wrote: Hopefully there'll be pics soon...

-Mc

Looking forward to them.

guys lets try to back for our disscusions

radias
This powerful MMT-based (Multiple Modeling Technology) synth engine features dual oscillators which combine to offer analog-modeled waves, DWGS (PCM) waves, noise, ring mod and more. Waveform modulation, Variable Phase Modulation (VPM), Unison voice thickening, PWM and cross-mod expand the sonic palette.all this options cant be used to make good solo sounds ?or only the moss can do gr8 solo sound ?hope that korg soon korg releases new keyboards that got moss and radias expension at the same time it will be like a gift to us ...

tarek wrote:radias
This powerful MMhope that korg soon korg releases new keyboards that got moss and radias expension at the same time it will be like a gift to us ...

They already have released it ... Oasys and Z1.

Guys, to save some time in the future in these forums, MOSS has been abandoned. Korg have zero plans to do anything with it again and don't have anyone on staff to do anything with it even if they wanted to.

The Radias will do solo leads and any other form of synth sound with great power. That is both analog and digital sounding synth sounds.

What it can not do is the 'realistic' instruments such as brass, plucked string, woodwind.

I believe you can get some very expressive electric pianos out of it however. I certainly have.

X-Trade wrote:The Radias will do solo leads and any other form of synth sound with great power. That is both analog and digital sounding synth sounds.

What it can not do is the 'realistic' instruments such as brass, plucked string, woodwind.

I believe you can get some very expressive electric pianos out of it however. I certainly have.

fine if the radias exb cant i immitate the moss sounds,what about the m3 engine the EDS engine which korg says its the most powerfull synth engine ever been built by korg ..!! can it recreate the moss sounds ..?does it have physical moudling ..if inot then why korg are so proud with this synth engine if it cant immitate or beat the 1996 z1 moss tone genartor..!! or even the prophecy boards ?what is so special about this generator what it can do the HI or moss cant do?

Think of it like a religion maybe.

Physical modelling is one way, sampling is another.

Perhaps (indeed certainly) Physical Modelling is more expressive, but if 90% of the users don't notice or need or even care about those features, what is the point in including it? Particularly as most Physical Modelling systems have to be expensively licensed from Yamaha.

It was included in the OASYS and the M3 is supposed to be a more traditional workstation spinoff of OASYS technology, so another possibility is that at the time they wanted to keep physical modelling as a unique selling point of the OASYS.

Whilst I think physical modelling is great, I don't think it would be beneficial to the majority of users. Just like many people seem to think the awful sound coming out of their mobile phone on the bus constitutes listenable 'music'.

Some sounds (like EPs and some blown/plucked) can be immitated on the Radias using its comb filter and waveshaper, although it is more down-to-basics than the carefully calibrated and specially controlled characteristics immitated in physical modelling, many physical modelling techniques are based on comb filters, the parameters are just more abstracted from the function to be more natural to the user.


Now EDS is certainly more technically advanced than any of their previous workstation sample-based engines, so it is still pretty damn good. And with up to four velocity layers for a program, you could argue that it can compete with MOSS' physical modelling - but only in the singular dimension of velocity. You can't get other controller parameters to stretch the sound in physically believable ways. But it is perhaps more straightforward to the average user, who hardly dives into the editing of patches anyway.

had an M3 I hated that freakin thing so much. It was not better in any way to the extreme as far as sounds go. the extreme with MOSS kicks the m3 arse. BUT.......the M3 has awesome creativity features such as the pads , xy screen and Karma. The reed and sax type instruments are great on the extreme. The m3 is a totally different beast. Its so flat out of the box, so you have to tweak everything, literally!

this is my opinion

I think it's interesting to point out that Yamaha has abandoned physical modeling on all of their products and has moved to sample modeling. I don't think that their decision reduces the usefulness or benefits of physical modeling, since I think it was more of a business decision about which kind of technology will give them the best sounding results for their purpose - to make a profit selling it. The SuperArticulation voices on the Tyros 2/3 and PSR-S900/S910 are great for the instruments they do, but Yamaha doesn't give the user the ability to do their own SuperArticulation voices because the programming is proprietary.

So for someone trying to synthesize specific acoustic instruments such as the ones used in many cultures for their traditional music, then physical modeling like MOSS offers more capability to get a better result for the amount of time needed to program it vs. EDS. Sample modeling can achieve a result that's as good or better than physical modeling, if you're willing to put in the programming time and effort to produce a more realistic result with custom software. An example of this are "The Trumpet", "The Trombone", and the Sax Brothers by SampleModeling.com. But the sample modeling offered by M3/EDS seems to be very limited compared to what you can do with custom software. I don't know of anyone who's made an articulated instrument program for M3/EDS, and I'm not sure it's even possible without specialized and proprietary tools used by Korg's programmers.

As technology progresses, the line between the two kinds of modeling will become very blurred, since the technique used to produce the sound will be less important than the sophistication of the model and the power of the programming and processing behind it.

well if moss is so special in wood winds and so...what about the m3 expansion boards ..can the m3 with woodwind 1 or 2 expansion boards compete the triton extreme with moss ?

tarek wrote:well if moss is so special in wood winds and so...what about the m3 expansion boards ..can the m3 with woodwind 1 or 2 expansion boards compete the triton extreme with moss ?

no.

as far as articulation is concerned, no way.

the brass expansion is full of "falling trombones" and ""chirping flutes", but the fall is always there, the chirpi is always identical...

... boring romplitude

Yeah, the main difference between physical modelling (or even certain sounds a VA makes) and sample based synthesis like the M3 and Triton's base synth engine (EDS and HI) is that articulation can only be provided realistically through velocity and through pre-sampled actions. For example you could sample all the guitar harmonics and then have it velocity switched so when you play softly it will play harmonics.

With physical modelling (theoretically if the model allowed it) you could assign the joystick or something to the degree of fret damping so you can go from full note playing down to harmonics and anywhere in between, because that joystick action is actually controlling the physical characteristics/parameters of the model, not just switching from one sample to the other.

Now sample switching and stuff is okay for about 85% of users. Just look at the popularity of DNC (Dynamic Nuance Control) on the PA800 and PA2X series from KORG.
Doesn't mean it is technically better though.

With sampling you need to sample every nuance of a sound and usually it will be the same articulation every time - as Ozy says, the same fall every time you hit that note for a fall, the same chirp. Because it is a sample.
Physical modelling gives you an entire digital simulation of the physical processes that make up the instrument. It also allows you to create unusual designs too. Not sure if you can do it with MOSS, but imagine an acoustic guitar model where you have the joystick assigned to change the size and shape of the soundbox! that kind of continuous control is not available with sampling.

It comes down to how prominent and realistic those sounds need to be in your productions.

I find this type of debate about whether sounds are good or not really interesting... but it strikes me that a key element a) has not been mentioned in this thread and b) is often overlooked!

Of course there will always be subjectivity regarding the sounds of a fantom verses an M3 versus whatever... and all their ways (or not) of working with sounds.

But consider this - a violin has four strings, but has many makers; but in itself a severly limited instrument. So how comes it sounds different with each soloist that has ever performed?

My point is that it's how you use the M3 sounds and what music you play on it - if you want the perfect piano than buy a bechstein or steinway. However, what the M3 is BRILLIANT at (imho) is that there certain (instrument) sounds like sax, guitar, etc) that if played in the right way and the in the right range (remember our violin can't shift octaves like an M3 can) so if you use notes too low or too high, then it stops being realistic.

Now as you can probably tell, I'm not an engineering guru on the M3, but what I can do is match music with sound and range and then tweak (if I have to).

The M3 is a wonderful beast and just wanted to bring the dimension of music into this debate because it's not just about MMT, EDS or whatever.

theres no question that the M3 is a great product but if the user is looking for ..well lets say like a violin its been tuned by Korg and ready to play on a Triton extreme imo but on the M3 its not fine tuned and needs work to get it sounding live and or full, so you need to tune it. That is time that can make or break a song for me. Inspiration is important and tweaking sounds all the time can kill the creative process. They should have gone more with the Triton sound approach with an option to disable all the extra fx in Global mode... tweaking is essential but I don't want to have to tweak everything.